The main legal point established is the maintainability of a second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C based on new evidence, as interpreted by judicial pronouncements.

JUDGMENT

P.B. Bajanthri, J. - In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of order dated 20.12.2016 and 27.2.2017 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accused stand rejected.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that initially on 9.6.2015 an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved for the first time. Application was decided. Thereafter, matter was heard by the Revisional Court and upheld the order on 30.04.2016. Further second application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon respondents No.2 and 3 and it has been decided on 20.12.2016 while rejecting the application. Consequently, it has been upheld by the Revisional Court on 27.2.2017. It is further submitted that statement of PW-2 Rohtash was recorded on 17.10.2016. The same has been referred. However, there is no discussion to the extent how the Kailash Devi and Nisha were responsible for causing injuries. What has been stated is "Sonam nowhere stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that additional accused inflicted injuries to her. PW-1-Krishan Kumar and PW-2-Rohtash stated that Kailash wife of Krishan inflicted Farsa blow". Other than this nothing has been appreciated like allegations in the FIR against Kailash and Nisha so also with reference to MLR i.e. Injury No.2 and 8. Thus, court below have not appreciated statement of Rohtash; allegations in the FIR read with the MLR. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions rendered in the case of Ashok Singh v. State of U.P , (2008) 62 AllCriC 602 and CRM-M-37845-2012 titled as Raghuwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another; decided on 4.2.2014.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that one application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C is rejected with reference to the available records and this order has been upheld by the revisional court, second application is impermissible. It was also submitted that in an identical matter Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan , (2017) 3 RCR(Criminal) 374 (see: Para-15), it is held that how the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C is required to be examined with reference to statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders of court below dated 20.12.2016 and 27.2.2017.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Crux of the matter in the present case is whether second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C is maintainable or not Further prima facie material has been considered by the court below for the purpose of entertaining application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C or not

6. Perusal of FIR dated 4.4.2012, there is specific allegations against respondents No.2-Kailash and respondent No.3-Nisha to the extent of causing injury to the injured persons. Further statement of PW-2 Rohtash is crystal clear to the extent that Kailash and Nisha how they caused injury so also MLR i.e. Injury No.2 and 8. The above mentioned material has not been taken into consideration while considering first application on 9.6.2015 and 30.4.2016 by the court below. Even though statement of PW-2 Rohtash is dated 17.10.2016 as on the date of first application field under Section 319 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 was not available. Statement of PW2 is required to be taken into consideration while considering second application in view of the decisions rendered in Ashok Singh v. State of U.P , (2008) 62 AllCriC 602 and CRM-M-37845-2012 titled as Raghuwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another; decided on 4.2.2014. Para 7 of Ashok Singh's case and relevant extract of Raghuwant Singh's case read as under:

"7. So far as the order dated 5.7.2007 is concerned as alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the second application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.c., when other evidence was also adduced in the Court concerned but it was rejected only on the gro